*2
Before
SCHNAGKENBERG and’
CASTLE,
Judges,
GRUBB,,
Circuit
Judge.
District
CASTLE,
Judge.
Circuit
Ziegler,
Ruth
plaintiff-appellee,,
B.
brought
Equita-
this action1
Society
ble Life Assurance
of the United
States, defendant-appellant, as benefici-
ary
under insurance
issued
Ziegler,
on the life
E.
defendant
Leslie
Following
plaintiff’s deceased husband.
paid plain-
insured’s death
diversity.
grounds
Court on
Removed
the State Court to the District
the same
should
motions
$10,000.00
standards. Such
amount of
tiff the
face
along
evidence,
re- be denied
“where
policies.
seeks
In her suit
reasonably
all
$10,000.00
covery
inferences
be
of an additional
therefrom,
drawn
when viewed
indemnity
defend-
double
benefits which
*3
light
oppos
party
most favorable to the
pay.
jury trial resulted
A
ant declined to
ing
motion,
such
reasonable
the
such that
plaintiff
which
is
in a
for
verdict
impartial
men in
judgment.
a fair and
exercise
District Court entered
judgment may
their
reach different con
appeal presents the
The defendant’s
Penney
clusions.”
Com
Smith v. J. C.
following
issues:
contested
Cir.,
pany,
261 F.2d
219.
in
err
1. Did
District Court
the
denying
motions
defendant’s
the
We have examined
and
the record
for
and
a
verdict
for
judgment
directed
find that
most
favorable
notwithstanding
the
following
describes
circum
the
verdict?
surrounding
ques
stances
the incident
tion. The insured entered
Illinois
the
err
Court
2. Did
District
the
Hospital
Research and Educational
denying
alternative
defendant’s
Chicago
diag
on
for
November
a new trial?
motion for
nostic
on
tests
the
a
recommendation of
pay-
provide
policies
Each of the
general practitioner. He had consulted
in-
face amount
ment of double the
if
during
physician
this
1956and 1957. The
defined
as
sured dies from accident
placed
hospital’s
insured was
Neu
from
death
policy.
define
The
ropsychiatric
Institute. At the time
resulting solely from
accident as “death
bodily injuries
very confused, ap
his
he
admission was
directly,
exclusive-
caused
prehensive and not orientated as to date
ly
independently
other causes
of all
and
period
years
or situation. For
of two
a
by external,
purely acciden-
violent and
his condition had been on a continued
“resulting
excluding death
tal means”
downgrade;
grossly fatigued,
he was
had
by
indirectly
directly or
or caused
from
weight,
a marked loss of
a
walked with
* *
*
insane,
or
sane
self-destruction
gait tilting
unsteady,
left,
was
and
any kind, physical
disease or illness
poor
By
had
muscular
coordination.
infirmity
mental
or
hospital
he
confu
entered the
his
time
gradually
point
in-
death resulted from
insured’s
sion had
The
increased to the
jumped
juries
memory
very
he either
received
much
his
became
dis
floor
a hos-
complained
fell
a fourth
window of
In 1956
had
turbed.
he
diagnos-
undergoing
pital
physical
where he was
exhaustion and
because
resigned
tic
condition of his
he had
tests.
health
professor
president
and
a
Missouri
contends that
evi-
The
college
traveling position
taken a
and
a
provides no rational
basis
dence
finding
Director of
National
Field Service for
by accident,
but on the
of death
League
Epilepsy
and
moved from
contrary,
insured’s
establishes
Grove,
to Downers
Illinois.
Missouri
He
result of self-destruction
death was the
resigned
position
August,
latter
infirmity. The
physical
and
or mental
hoped
insured had
to better
contends
defendant also
physical
accept
condition
order
his
instructions,
objec-
giving
over
erred
tion,
college
position in another Missouri
a
concerning
presumption
had been offered to
which
him. There
impeachment of a wit-
and the
suicide
medical
was
insured
that.the
ness.
instability;
no
had
though
emotional
al
reviewing
ruling
was "blue
down in
a
he
In
dumps”,
depres
no
there
emotional
motion for a
ver
on a
directed
trial
judgment
sion;
depression
had mental
he
no
nor
or motion for
notwith
dict
a
governed
standing
by
are
verdict we
suicidal tendencies.
attempted was discovered
On
the insured
he
two occasions
became startled
going
accidentally
hospital
down
to leave the
cannot
We
fell..
say
occupied
stairway.
specula
such a conclusion
so
back
The room he
is
day of
tive as to
On the
have no
was on
fourth floor.
rational basis.
death
occasions,
his
two
incident whieh caused
once
very day,
confused,
attempted
appeared
halls
had
hos
walked
to leave the
pital. Although
going
tinuously
down
and was discovered
stairway
the record establishes
brought
memory
to that he
back
was confused
the back
and his
put
7:00 bad
bed about
there is no
in
his room. He was
evidence of mental
firmity.
contrary
nurse
later
On the
P.M.
a half-hour
About
there
direct
*4
testimony
emotionally
in the medicine
he was
and
aid who were
nurses’
not
unstable,
depressed
loud
was
fourth floor heard
not
had
room on the
and
glass.
breaking
They
no
ran into
suicidal
crash
tendencies.
in
of
As was said
corridor,
Co.,
the ad- Kettlewell
door
v.
noticed the
of
Prudential
4
the
Insurance
although
jacent
Ill.2d
unoccupied
closed,
122
N.E.2d
room
823:
door,
open, opened the
it should have been
clearly
“The evidence here is
light.
on the
turned
entered the room and
hypothesis
sistent with an
of death
window;
the
in
The insured was
the
by accident or carelessness. Rea-
holding
glass
side
was
each
was out. He
sonable minds could conclude that
nurse
The
of window with
hands.
the
pedestrian
his.
this
had no
in-
suicidal
“stop
him and shouted
ran toward
jurors
tent. Twelve
who saw and
jump”.
in
variance
don’t
There is some
heard the witnesses decided it was
of the
of the nurse and
the
not suicide.
trial
The
court who saw
respect
posi-
the exact
nurses’ aid with
to
approved
and heard the witnesses
of
on window sill and
tion
the insured
the
finding.”
this
jumped merely
or
as to whether he
It
is our conclusion that
the District
and
from
incident
fell
the window. The
denying
Court did
err
not
in
defendant’s
happened
a matter of
The
in
seconds.
motion for
a directed verdict and
type
the
casement
window was of
steel
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
sections,
and
two
each of which was
objection
Over defendant’s
the District
high
15
wide.
about 60 inches
inches
gave
concerning
Court
three instructions
Each half of the window could be cranked
legal
against
presumption
the
suicide.
open
6
sill
no more than
inches. The
or
jury
pre
The
was instructed that
law
the
ledge
mostly
room,
was
inside of the
by
all men
sumes
to be “animated
in
the
depth
13
and about 30
about
inches
self-preservation”
of
stinct
and further
inches above floor level.
proof”
that when there is “no
in
whether
Upon
our review the record under
juries causing death were “accidental or
announced,
the standards
we hold there
“presumption
self-inflicted” the
is that
also,
evidence
was sufficient
the case
take
they
by
occurred
accident.” It was
jury
question
on
the
of whether
instructed that
de
the burden was on
was
the insured’s death
the result
ac-
presumption
fendant “to overcome the
that,
or ex-
cident as defined
against
by
showing
suicide”
evidence
covering
by
provisions
cluded
resulting
death
showing
death was self-inflicted or
self-destruction, physical
leaving
existence of circumstances
room
infirmity.
say,
mental
We cannot
hypothesis
for “no other reasonable
than
law,
evidence,
a matter of
that it
that of suicide”.
In Kettlewell
Pru
v.
jury
would
been irrational
have
Co.,
383, 392,
dential Insurance
4 Ill.2d
broke the
to conclude
817, 819,
pointed
122 N.E.2d
it was
out
seeking
glass,
sill
climbed on
window
that:
making
possibility
determine
uniformly
“It
been
held
has
by
hospital
dropping
legal
exit from the
an
presumption
sui-
contradictory
down from the
when
window
vanishes
cide..
thereafter,
We have
cases relied
produced,
considered the
evidence
such as Wilkinson
on the
question is to be decided
pre
Co.,
Aetna
v.
Life
Insurance
to the
resort
evidence without
L.R.A.,N.S.
88 N.E.
Life
sumption (Guardian Mutual
contrary
35;
there was no
Hogan,
Os
evidence
80 Ill.
Ins. Co.
presumption.
Osborne,
doctrine
such cases
325 Ill.
borne v.
applicable
is not
evidence in
306).”
under the
N.E.
this case.
cited
Mutual case
In the Guardian
variance
in-
the issue was
Kettlewell
pre-trial deposition
nurse
her
inadvertently or
taken arsenic
sured had
opinion
not such as in
was
our
warranted
deliberately
evidence
and there was
given
impeachment
the instruction
The court said:
the latter.
deposi
a witness. Her
omission
was entitled
“The
jump”
tion that she
“don’t
shouted
ques
it made on this
issue
have the
not a material contradiction.
decided,
fairly
submitted
tion
give
It was reversible error to
in-
evi
preponderance of the
upon a
*5
complained
structions
of and the District
a
An instruction
adduced.
to
dence
grant-
Court for that reason should have
‘presumption
law’
jury
of
what
ed
trial.
defendant’s motion for a new
disputed
question
was, upon
a
judgment
is
and the
reversed
cause
upon in Gar
fact,
commented
remanded with
that defend-
directions
111,
Pegg,
and con
64 Ill.
v.
rettson
motion for a
ant’s
trial be allowed.
new
likely
being extremely
to
demned, as
jury.”
mislead
Reversed
Remanded With Direc-
tions.
there
Here
was a conflict
eye
witness
as to
Judge
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit
jumped
window
(dissenting).
merely
go and fell.
there
And where
issue,
conflicting
t^e
is evidence on a controversial
evidence
the record
jury
to the
evi
case should
made this a classical case for determina
by jury.
be
sup
submitted
the inferences to
dence
a
to
tion
There is evidence
giving
port
approved
therefrom without
to one
drawn
the verdict arrived at and
party
Judge
such an by
Igoe,
jurist.
additional
experienced
benefit
an
I
instruction, the effect of which tilts the
in the instructions which
find no error
unjustly
plaintiff.
jury.
in favor of
gave
scales
American Home Circle
Co.,
604;
Schneider,
Ill.App. 600,
v. Prudential Insurance
Kettlewell
134
v.
Gold
434, 439,
Ill.App.2d
Metropolitan
Co.,
6
several
pital, fact inconsistent which is theory evi- and which was the suicide dently persuasive in minds of the jury. judgment
I dis- would affirm the of the
trict court. Plaintiff-Appellee, FAGAN, L.
Owen SCHROEDER, Postmaster, Chi
Carl A. *6 Illinois, Justus, cago, Chi and Robert R. cago Regional Post Director of the Of Defendants-Appel Department, fice lants.
No. 12945. Appeals
United States Court of
Seventh Circuit.
Dec.